I have an observation that I would like to see addressed in the document. Some applications (e.g., 'iperf3' and others) actually leverage IP fragmentation to achieve higher data rates than are possible using smaller (but unfragmented) whole packets.
Try it - by default, iperf3 sets an 8KB UDP packet size and allows packets to fragment across paths that support only smaller MTUs. I have seen iperf3 exercise IP reassembly at line rates on high-speed links, i.e., it shows that reassembly at high rates is feasible. We know from RFC4963 that there are dangers for reassembly at high rates, but there are applications such as iperf3 that ignore the "SHOULD NOT" and leverage IP fragmentation anyway. So, should the "SHOULD NOT" have an asterisk? Thanks - Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wassim Haddad > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 12:43 PM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile > > Dear all, > > We would like to start a WG adoption call for > draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile (“IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile”). > > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-03.txt > > > Please indicate your preferences on the mailling list. The deadline is August > 10th. > > > Thanks, > > Juan & Wassim > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
